Bill to slash rooftop solar incentives weakened by Assembly committee

An Assembly committee backed away on Wednesday night from a controversial provision in a proposed bill to end solar credits for 2 million owners of rooftop solar systems, saying it would apply only to those who sold their homes.
Assembly Bill 942, introduced by Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), targeted long-standing programs that provide energy credits to Californians who installed solar panels before April 15, 2025.
As originally drafted, the bill would have limited the current program's benefits to 10 years — half of the 20-year period the state had told rooftop owners they would receive. The committee nixed that provision, leaving another that would cancel the program for those selling their homes.
With the amendment, the bill passed 10 to 5, sending it on to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Scores of rooftop solar owners attended the hearing, asking the committee members to vote no. Some said that even with the amendment they believed the measure would reduce the value of their home.
'We just put our home up for sale yesterday,' said Dwight James, a resident of Simi Valley, who is still making payments on a loan he took out to pay for his solar system. 'We didn't expect the state to break its promise to us.'
Calderon, a former executive at Southern California Edison, said she proposed the bill because the financial credits given to rooftop solar owners for excess electricity they send to the grid are raising electric bills for those who don't own the panels.
Edison and the state's two other large for-profit electric companies supported the bill, along with members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
Major utilities use unionized labor to build and repair equipment, including the lines connecting distant industrial-scale solar farms in the desert. Companies installing rooftop panels generally don't use union workers.
The legislation doesn't affect customers served by municipal utilities.
Several members of the Assembly Utilities & Energy Committee said at the hearing that their offices have been overwhelmed with calls and emails from solar customers.
'I've gotten more opposition to this bill than to any other by eight- to tenfold,' said Assemblywoman Pilar Schiavo (D-Santa Clarita), who voted no.
Before the hearing began, an analyst who reviews legislation for the committee recommended the 10-year sunset provision be removed from the bill. She cited a state requirement that solar owners sign a consumer protection guide that calls the arrangement a 'contract' and says the credits are 'guaranteed' for 20 years.
Keeping that provision, said analyst Laura Shybut, the committee's chief consultant, could pave the way for legal challenges to the legislation.
The bill prompted protests this month by owners of the rooftop solar panels, who said they had invested thousands of dollars in the green energy systems based on assurances the incentives would last for 20 years.
Also opposing the bill were schools, businesses, apartment owners and others who had installed the rooftop panels.
A group of school districts including Los Angeles Unified, San Diego Unified and the Alameda County Office of Education filed a letter to the Assembly committee in opposition to the proposed legislation.
'School districts made good faith investments in solar energy technology based on the commitments of the state,' the schools wrote. 'It is unfair and could raise legal concerns to retroactively change the rules.'
'The state should be supporting investments in rooftop solar to meet our climate goals and to promote affordability for all customers, not undermining those who heeded its guidance and mandates to make these investments,' the schools wrote.
Committee members said that with the amendment the schools would no longer be affected.
Also opposing the bill were dozens of environmental groups, consumer organizations and the rooftop solar industry, which argued that electric bills are rising because of excessive utility spending — not from credits given to owners of the green energy systems.
The value of the credits — provided to panel owners at the retail rate of electricity — has increased rapidly as the state Public Utilities Commission voted to approve rate increases requested by the utility companies.
At a news conference on Tuesday, Calderon appeared with members of utility worker unions, saying the credits were shifting billions of dollars in costs to people who did not own the panels, which was especially hurting the poor.
'This is about fairness and equity — nothing more,' she said.
Rooftop solar advocates have challenged that assertion, citing statistics from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that show 39% of the owners of the rooftop panels in 2023 had household incomes of less than $100,000. About 12% had incomes below $50,000.
Several committee members said Wednesday night that they had heard from solar owners of all income levels.
'I have to push back on the narrative that these are all high-income people,' Schiavo said.
Some also questioned whether those without solar panels would actually see a reduction in their electric bills if the measure passed.
'How much of this will go back to the consumer?' asked Laurie Davies (D-Laguna Niguel), who voted no. Her question wasn't answered.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New York Post

2 hours ago

• New York Post

What will it take for Gavin Newsom to focus on his day job?

President Donald Trump rightly took the ruling upholding his National Guard deployment to Los Angeles as a 'BIG WIN,' but it can be a winner for Californians, too — if it inspires their governor to focus on the job they elected him to. Gov. Gavin Newsom vows to litigate on, but if necessary the Supreme Court will slap him down, too. What will get him to quit his near-nonstop posturing to set himself up for a 2028 presidential run, and get his nose to the gubernatorial grindstone? It's bad enough that he sided with LA Mayor Karen Bass in obstructing ICE efforts to deport child predators, murderers and other worst-of-the-worst 'asylum seekers' — posturing that all but invited the riots that Trump deployed the Guard to shut down. Worse that this rush to the left came after Newsom's fake to the right with a series of podcasts where he pretended sympathy to centrist criticisms of the far-left agenda. That follows his haplessness during the Los Angeles fires — a disaster Trump credibly tied to Newsom's green obsessions. Other Gavin grotesquerie included rushing to meet the president on Trump's LA visit bare weeks after prepping for all-out legal #resistance to the new prez. California is plagued with soaring homelessness, elevated crime rates and brutally high costs of living: Even its welcome to illegal immigrants hasn't prevented a historic switch from growth to decline. That is: On Newsom's watch, Cali is for the first time ever losing seats in the House of Representatives because so many residents are fleeing to less-toxic jurisdictions. The Golden State is a natural near-paradise, but Newsom & co. are destroying it. That governor is still devoting his time and energy to a years-off national run is damning proof that he doesn't care a whit for the people of California.

Yahoo

8 hours ago

• Yahoo

Port of LA Ordered by Federal Judge to Clean Up Contaminated Wastewater

The Port of Los Angeles will comply with an order from a U.S. District Court judge to remediate environmental impacts stemming from the discharge of hazardous waste that has allegedly caused widespread contamination in the L.A. Harbor. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Environment California against the City of Los Angeles, which alleged that the country's busiest port violated the federal Clean Water Act by letting untreated wastewater containing toxic copper and fecal bacteria pollute the harbor within San Pedro Bay since 2019. More from Sourcing Journal US Companies Take Trump Tariff Suit to Supreme Court Port of LA Imports Dip 9% in May After Tariff Shock Nebraska AG Sues Temu Over Alleged Consumer Protection Violations Filed last July, the suit said that more than 2,000 illegal discharges had taken place within the course of the previous five years, stemming from stormwater and contaminated groundwater that collects within a 53-acre area of the Port. Now, the Port will be required to ameliorate the issue by changing its management of stormwater and groundwater. The court's ruling states that the city will have to treat the water to remove toxic pollutants by redirecting it to the Terminal Island Water Reclamation Plant. Specific performance metrics must be achieved or the Port will face monetary penalties. Also under the settlement, the Port will be required to shell out $1.3 million to the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment for use in restoration projects tied to the L.A. Harbor and San Pedro Bay, with most of the money earmarked for a project designed to remove waste. The Port is mandated to pay a $130,00 civil penalty to the U.S. Treasury as well. 'Californians count on having a clean, vibrant coastline, but that's not compatible with contaminated effluent that can lap up on our world-renowned shores,' said Laura Deehan, Environment California's state director. 'This settlement is a great step toward a cleaner, safer San Pedro Bay, and it demonstrates the vital role that citizen lawsuits play in the enforcement of our federal environmental laws.' According to Deehan, the settlement has a 'double benefit' for the L.A. Harbor, namely that it will end the Port's discharge violations and also provide funding to remove waste. The National Environmental Law Center's staff attorney, Lewis DeHope, said the settlement 'promises to finally put an end to the Port's long-standing violations that have plagued the harbor for years,' adding that, 'Bacteria and copper are out; effective treatment is in.'

Los Angeles Times

9 hours ago

• Los Angeles Times

California to examine its Amazon oil ties following pleas from Indigenous leaders from Ecuador

RICHMOND, California — An oil tanker sat docked at Chevron's sprawling refinery in Richmond on Thursday — a visible link between California's appetite for Amazon crude and the remote rainforest territories where it's extracted. Just offshore, bundled in puffy jackets against the Bay wind, Indigenous leaders from Ecuador's Amazon paddled kayaks through choppy waters, calling attention to the oil expansion threatening their lands. Their visit to California helped prompt the state Senate to introduce a landmark resolution urging officials to examine the state's role in importing crude from the Amazon. The move comes as Ecuador's government prepares to auction off 14 new oil blocks — covering more than 2 million hectares of rainforest, much of it Indigenous territory — in a 2026 bidding round known as 'Sur Oriente.' The Indigenous leaders say the move goes against the spirit of a national referendum in which Ecuadorians voted to leave crude oil permanently underground in Yasuni National Park. The preservation push in Ecuador comes as another South American country that includes part of the Amazon rainforest, Brazil, is moving ahead with plans to further develop oil resources. On Tuesday, Brazil auctioned off several land and offshore potential oil sites near the Amazon River as it aims to expand production in untapped regions despite protests from environmental and Indigenous groups. Juan Bay, president of the Waorani people of Ecuador, said that his delegation's coming to California was 'important so that our voices, our stance, and our struggle can be elevated' and urged Californians to reexamine the source of their crude from the Amazon — 'from Waorani Indigenous territory.' On Thursday, the Indigenous delegation joined local Californians in Richmond for a kayaking trip near a Chevron refinery, sharing stories about the Amazon and perspectives on climate threats. For Nadino Calapucha, a spokesperson for the Kichwa Pakkiru people, the visit to California's Bay Area was deeply moving. Spotting seals in the water and a bird's nest nearby felt ¨like a gesture of solidarity from nature itself,' he told The Associated Press on a kayak. 'It was as if the animals were welcoming us,' he said. The connection between the Amazon and California — both facing environmental threats — was palpable, Calapucha said. 'Being here with our brothers and sisters, with the local communities also fighting — in the end, we feel that the struggle is the same,' he said. California is the largest global consumer of Amazon oil, with much of it refined and used in the state as fuel. Ecuador is the region's top producer of onshore crude. Bay highlighted a March 2025 ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which found that Ecuador had violated the rights of the area's Indigenous groups by allowing oil operations in and around a site known as Block 43. The court ordered the government to halt extraction in protected areas and uphold the 2023 referendum banning drilling in Yasuni National Park, where the country's largest crude reserve lies, estimated at around 1.7 billion barrels. Bay appealed to the California government to reconsider if it 'should continue receiving crude from the Amazon' — or continue to be 'complicit in the violation of rights' happening on Indigenous territory. State Senator Josh Becker, who introduced the new resolution, praised the visiting leaders for defending both their land and the global climate. 'Their communities are on the front lines asserting their rights and resisting oil extraction,' Becker said on the Senate floor on Monday. 'They are defenders of a living rainforest that stores carbon, regulates the global climate, and sustains life.' Long criticized by environmental justice advocates, the refinery has processed millions of barrels of Amazon crude, fueling concerns over pollution, public health, and the state's role in rainforest destruction. The delegation also helped launch a new report by Amazon Watch, an Oakland-based non-profit dedicated to the protection of the Amazon Basin, which outlines the climate, legal and financial risks of operating in Indigenous territories without consent. Kevin Koenig, Amazon Watch's director for climate, energy and extraction industry, said the impacts of Amazon crude extend far beyond Ecuador. He joined the Ecuadorian delegation on the kayaking trip on Thursday. 'The Golden State, if it wants to be a climate leader, needs to take action,' he told AP. 'California has an addiction to Amazon crude.' Californians need to 'recognize their responsibility and their complicity in driving demand for Amazon crude and the impact that that is having on Indigenous people, on their rights, on the biodiversity and the climate,' he added. California's future is closely tied to the Amazon's — the state relies on the rainforest's role in climate regulation and rainfall, Koenig said, warning that continued Amazon crude imports contribute to the very destruction increasing California's vulnerability to drought and wildfires. He said environmental and public health damage tied to oil drilling is not confined to South America. 'We're seeing the same impacts from the oil well to the wheel here in California, where communities are suffering from contamination, health impacts, dirty water,' he said. 'It's time that California lead an energy transition.' California, one of the world's largest economies and a major importer of Amazon crude, must take stronger climate action, Koenig added and called on the state to phase out its reliance on oil linked to deforestation, human rights abuses, pollution, and climate damage. The resolution commends the Indigenous communities of Ecuador for their struggle in defending the rainforest and Indigenous rights. It also marks the first time California would examine how its energy consumption may contribute to the region's deforestation and cultural loss. The resolution is expected to be up for a vote within a few weeks, according to Koenig. Grattan and Vasquez write for the Associated Press.